Reebok 2010 ~ ZigTech

[dyyhard]

looked at my lebron zoom iv black crimson and thought of the zigtechs...

 

[gijace]

I tried these on at my local footlocker and these have a lot of potential.. I compare it with the SC trainers and free 5.0 with comfort level imo..

 

[dmxfury]

Got mine today from rbk.com, these feel great and I agree with Tre, these almost push you forward when walking. Can't wait to wear around

 

[optimusp517]

Man debating on the orange ones. Going to the mall to check them out today.

 

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by dmxfury

Got mine today from rbk.com, these feel great and I agree with Tre, these almost push you forward when walking. Can't wait to wear around

Did you size 1/2 up?  

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

They act like this technology is new, which is the main thing I don't like.

have
How is this technology NOT new?  First off if you didn't see it earlier in the post and you really think reebok took from Nike's Free shoe, its actually the other way around.  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-161873409.html     Second.  I have yet to try one Nike shoe that performs like the zig tech, before you say its nothing new try wearing the shoe first.

I didn't say anything about Nike. Mizuno has been doing the "wave" for a while. They've done it WELL too.

You work for Reebok or something? Your high as hell on these. They're OKAY but nothing special. The insole that comes stock with these is a lot better than your average sockliner for sure. It's a pretty good first run shoe for a brand that is trying to get it's name back in the spotlight. Between these and the different 'Tones they have, i'd say it's at least a step in the right direction.

 

[trethousandgt]

Crazy EBW wrote:

---

trethousandgt wrote:

---

Crazy EBW wrote:

---

They act like this technology is new, which is the main thing I don't like.
have 
How is this technology NOT new?  First off if you didn't see it earlier in the post and you really think reebok took from Nike's Free shoe, its actually the other way around.  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-161873409.html     Second.  I have yet to try one Nike shoe that performs like the zig tech, before you say its nothing new try wearing the shoe first.
I didn't say anything about Nike. Mizuno has been doing the "wave" for a while. They've done it WELL too. 

You work for Reebok or something? Your high as hell on these. They're OKAY but nothing special. The insole that comes stock with these is a lot better than your average sockliner for sure. It's a pretty good first run shoe for a brand that is trying to get it's name back in the spotlight. Between these and the different 'Tones they have, i'd say it's at least a step in the right direction.


As someone that has owned a few of the Mizuno Wave creations I'll tell you this.  They do not perform like this shoe.  Nothing I have ever put on my feet has performed like this shoe.  I'm not saying its the most comfortable shoe, or even the best shoe for that matter, but I have never owned a pair of sneakers that actually thrust me forward.  This taken from a conversation on another forum from someone with extensive knowledge in biomechanics:     
  
"The 3D foam gives a lot of cushioning and the TPU plate provides excellent propulsion at the end of the gate cycle. Reebok has found a way to provide plenty of cushion and firm rebound. Of coarse this goes mainly for neutral runners.....most people fall into this category"

and no i do not work for Reebok

but as someone that has voiced their opinion on what Reebok wasn't doing, its only right to point out when they are doing good things, and they are definitely doing good things over there.

 

[dmxfury]

I didn't size up and they seem ok. I am only worried about the durability of the outsole, same concern with the old 3d Ultralites. Wore these after work got a lot of compliments

 

[optimusp517]

Man sucks the yellow ones are out of stock in sz 11 on reebok's website.

 

[crazy ebw]

Most people don't fall into the neutral running category.

I don't even like Mizuno like that, but I like them better than these.

 

[dmxfury]

Again I don't think these are meant for hardcore running more casual and working out/training shoes

 

[trethousandgt]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Most people don't fall into the neutral running category.

I don't even like Mizuno like that, but I like them better than these.

WRONG.  Most people DO fall into the neutral running category.
Neutral foot type: The most common type of foot. A runner with a neutral type of foot lands on the heel and rolls forward during the gait cycle until the impact is distributed evenly across the forefoot

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don't get me wrong the Wave creation is a great shoe but like I stated earlier they have never given me the feeling of being propelled forward.  I can see these helping professional athletes in all sports with their training they are truly a remarkable shoe.  Have you been able to try a pair out?  [/font]

 

[cayang123]

I got my pair a few days ago and took them for a run...they are very comfortable and the cushioning is excellent....

 

[crazy ebw]

If you see about half of your arch, you have the most common foot typeand are considered a normal pronator. Contrary to popular belief,pronation is a good thing. When the arch collapses inward, this"pronation" absorbs shock. As a normal pronator, you can wear justabout any shoe, but may be best suited to a stability shoe thatprovides moderate arch support (or medial stability). Lightweightrunners with normal arches may prefer neutral-cushioned shoes withoutany added support, or even a performance-training shoe that offers somesupport but less heft, for a faster feel.


I'm not sure if you consider pronation to be neutral, but I don't. I don't think you understand what exactly neutral means when you try to discuss it. When you're running, you WANT to feel propelled forward. You don't like that feeling?

 

[trethousandgt]

Makes no sense pronation is not bad.  Everyone has some degree of pronation most people are neutral not sure what the hell ur talking about last time i checked there are neutral over and under most people are neutral.  Zigtech is beneficial for people who are neutral. End of discussion.

 

[trethousandgt]

And I didn't say I don't like the feeling of being propelled while running, its while I am walking.  Just walking in these shoes gives you a fell of being pulled forward, not something I particularly like when I am going for a walk.  

 

[tokes99]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Most people don't fall into the neutral running category.

not sure if most people are in the neutral running category, but i would think that most shoes (running or otherwise) are likely made for neutral feet...

If you see about half of your arch, you have the most common foot type and are considered a normal pronator. Contrary to popular belief, pronation is a good thing. When the arch collapses inward, this "pronation" absorbs shock. As a normal pronator, you can wear just about any shoe, but may be best suited to a stability shoe that provides moderate arch support (or medial stability). Lightweight runners with normal arches may prefer neutral-cushioned shoes without any added support, or even a performance-training shoe that offers some support but less heft, for a faster feel.


I'm not sure if you consider pronation to be neutral, but I don't. I don't think you understand what exactly neutral means when you try to discuss it. When you're running, you WANT to feel propelled forward. You don't like that feeling?


i think may depend on your running style, if you run heel-to-toe pronation is the process of striking the lateral heel of your foot and rolling through to your toes; which is a somewhat unnatural way of running, however because of the cushioning provided in modern running shoes, most people do tend to run that way, instead of on the ball(s) of their feet which is more natural & reduces the amount of force being absorbed & dissipates it better; or something to that effect...even with that being the case,people do pronate when walking...and doesn't the whole description above describe the most common foot neutral? i.e. be flexible enough to wear any shoe, ultimately saying it depends on preference?

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by trethousandgt

Makes no sense pronation is not bad.  Everyone has some degree of pronation most people are neutral not sure what the hell ur talking about last time i checked there are neutral over and under most people are neutral.  Zigtech is beneficial for people who are neutral. End of discussion.

Zigtech is good for people who are neutral runners that do not pronate. Correct.

Zigtech do not provide lateral stability that the "MOST COMMON" foot type needs/benefits from. That's what i'm saying. You said neutral is the most common footstrike, when it isn't. The paragraph I posted says "lightweight runners with normal arches MAY prefer neutral SHOES". That doesn't mean it is the most common gait/foot. That's all i'm really trying to get across to you.

Tokes, most running shoes by companies other than Nike are pretty split up. There's no real huge difference for shoes that overpowers the other, but stability shoes account for a lot because most runner's prefer a guidance/lightweight stability shoe but that's ALL up to the individual. It DOES depend on preference. I'm not trying to argue that fact...

I was pointing out that a neutral (non-pronated) gait isn't the most common. Zigtech can benefit a smaller amount of runners that Tre thinks can. I don't think he can get that and i'm trying to explain it but obviously it isn't working.

 

[mt3130]

the average orthotic only reduces pronation by 1 degree and most stability running shoes only slow pronation. not taking sides, but 1 degree is the difference between neutral and stability.

 

[NCtwin]

Tried on the Fury colorway over the weekend, and I was definitely impressed. I stuck with my regular size, and they fit great.

 

[zombiejesus12]

 You guys arguing about stride types are missing the point entirely.

We're supposed to run barefoot, evolutionarily speaking. Our feet and legs are evolved to run that way. And for those of you that gone running with no shoes, you already know this is true. It's a million times better than with shoes. If you haven't tried it yet, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, when you run barefoot, you land on the outside of your midfoot, then your heel dips and you push off again. That's how our feet work. That's why we have an arch. There's a shape in architecture based on this concept; basically it can support weight above the curved portion, and the curved shape allows it to stretch out and accommodate more weight without breaking.

That's how our feet work. When you land on your midfoot, your arch stretches out to support your weight.You land light and fast under your center of gravity. If you don't believe me, then go outside, find a park, and run around in your bare feet. You'll see it yourself.

So back in the 70s when running became a big commercial market, Bowerman made a shoe that he thought could change running for the better. He figured that if you had a comfy heel, you could land on it when you run. And if you did that, you could take longer strides, and thus run faster. (By the way, seriously that was what he thought. That's like a 4 year old's understanding of science) So he made up the Cortez, which really introduced the idea of a thick-soled running shoe, and ended up changing a lot of the western world's ideas about how we run.

So basically in the last 30 years shoe manufacters have spent a whole lot of time making up crap for running shoes. Things like "pronation" and "arch support" are absolutely ridiculous if you think about them - as I explained, an arch IS ALREADY ITSELF A SUPPORT SYSTEM! So why would you put a little bit of rubber underneath it and  pretend like that's how it workds

It's completely ridiculous.

When Reebok says the ZigTech will save you wear and tear on the leg (like in the ads how you use 10% leg muscle or whatever it was), thus enabling you to run fast. That's not how the body works. Your legs are SUPPOSED to work a lot when you run! When they don't get exercised because you have a shoe like this, they muscles become weak! You don't become faster because your body is using less energy for your legs and can like transport that energy to your lungs! It's all more idiotic 4 year old ideas about how human beings work.

I mean, I would wear these casually. When you walk, it's supposed to be a heel-toe movement, so having a huge cushioned sole might be comfy in some limited use. But if you're running in this, you're not doing anything close to what nature intended your body to do. That's the bottom line

 

[dmxfury]

Again I hate to take such a basic approach but I highly doubt Rbk designed this shoe for hardcore running which has spurred this interesting debate. These are for casual wear and training/work out guy/girl that lifts, does an elliptical and runs 10 miles a week

 

[bostonthreeparty]

Originally Posted by ZombieJesus12

 You guys arguing about stride types are missing the point entirely.

We're supposed to run barefoot, evolutionarily speaking. Our feet and legs are evolved to run that way. And for those of you that gone running with no shoes, you already know this is true. It's a million times better than with shoes. If you haven't tried it yet, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, when you run barefoot, you land on the outside of your midfoot, then your heel dips and you push off again. That's how our feet work. That's why we have an arch. There's a shape in architecture based on this concept; basically it can support weight above the curved portion, and the curved shape allows it to stretch out and accommodate more weight without breaking.

That's how our feet work. When you land on your midfoot, your arch stretches out to support your weight.You land light and fast under your center of gravity. If you don't believe me, then go outside, find a park, and run around in your bare feet. You'll see it yourself.

So back in the 70s when running became a big commercial market, Bowerman made a shoe that he thought could change running for the better. He figured that if you had a comfy heel, you could land on it when you run. And if you did that, you could take longer strides, and thus run faster. (By the way, seriously that was what he thought. That's like a 4 year old's understanding of science) So he made up the Cortez, which really introduced the idea of a thick-soled running shoe, and ended up changing a lot of the western world's ideas about how we run.

So basically in the last 30 years shoe manufacters have spent a whole lot of time making up crap for running shoes. Things like "pronation" and "arch support" are absolutely ridiculous if you think about them - as I explained, an arch IS ALREADY ITSELF A SUPPORT SYSTEM! So why would you put a little bit of rubber underneath it and  pretend like that's how it workds

It's completely ridiculous.

When Reebok says the ZigTech will save you wear and tear on the leg (like in the ads how you use 10% leg muscle or whatever it was), thus enabling you to run fast. That's not how the body works. Your legs are SUPPOSED to work a lot when you run! When they don't get exercised because you have a shoe like this, they muscles become weak! You don't become faster because your body is using less energy for your legs and can like transport that energy to your lungs! It's all more idiotic 4 year old ideas about how human beings work.

I mean, I would wear these casually. When you walk, it's supposed to be a heel-toe movement, so having a huge cushioned sole might be comfy in some limited use. But if you're running in this, you're not doing anything close to what nature intended your body to do. That's the bottom line

then explain to me how i had to be put in a Walking boot when i got Posterior Tibular Tendonitis in my arch when I did not have orthodics, but for the past year i've had them, i've never felt any pain, only except the times i would be wearing non-orthodtic inserted flipflops ?  

 

[zombiejesus12]

^Because Posterior Tibular Tendonitis is a very rare problem with your tendon on the inside of your ankle. It messes up your whole foot.

The most common solution for this disorder in its' early stages is to give the tendon time to rest, which means not using it. Which is hard to do, because it's a part of the body you use hundreds of times an hour regularly. So commonly, doctors will put the foot in a walking boot or other such orthotics. What that does is limits your foot and ankle's movements, so your tendon doesn't get used. When your tendon IS used, like when you walk around with flip flops, it aggravates the problem and causes you extreme pain.

With normal feet, the tendon isn't inflamed and you can use it regularly. Unfortunately, you have a rare disorder. Sorry buddy.

 

[crazy ebw]

Running barefoot IS amazing!